September 23, 2016

Is the debate prep the same or different? The NYT — in "Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, Too" — stresses the difference, but there's a sameness in relying on the weakness of the other person and hoping to reveal and amplify what's wrong with the opponent. The difference is that Hillary seems to be getting scripted zingers ready while Trump is learning how to read her. That is, Trump is going deeper as he preps and will be more spontaneous during the event.

But that's not how the NYT writers — Patrick Healy, Amy Chozick, and Maggie Haberman — put it. To them, Hillary is deep and Trump is shallow:

Mrs. Clinton has a thick dossier on Mr. Trump after months of research and meetings with her debate team, including analysis and assumptions about his psychological makeup that Clinton advisers described as critical to understanding how to knock Mr. Trump off balance. Mrs. Clinton has concluded that catching Mr. Trump in a lie during the debate is not enough to beat him: She needs the huge television audience to see him as temperamentally unfit for the presidency, and that she has the power to unhinge him.

Mr. Trump, in turn, is approaching the debate like a Big Man on Campus who thinks his last-minute term paper will be dazzling simply because he wrote it. He has paid only cursory attention to briefing materials. He has refused to use lecterns in mock debate sessions despite the urging of his advisers. He prefers spitballing ideas with his team rather than honing them into crisp, two-minute answers.

With Mrs. Clinton largely devoting the next four days to mock debate sessions and drills in New York, and Mr. Trump hunkering down only on Sunday....

There's a lot more detail in the Healy-Chozick-Haberman report.

There's a section headed "Preparations" — which includes Hillary's idea that she might be able to annoy Trump by calling him "Donald." That took me back to the old debate between Governor Scott Walker and his opponent in the recall election, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. (At the time, I said: "I was annoyed by Barrett's calling Governor Walker 'Scott' repeatedly. Barrett tried to goad Walker and annoy him, but Walker never took the bait. Walker never showed any disrespect.")

Healy-Chozick-Haberman have a section "Strategy": "Mrs. Clinton and her advisers have written out dozens of answers.... [Trump's team told him:] Do not pick stupid fights with her or with the moderator...."

Under the heading "Mock Debates," we learn that Hillary will "do at least one timed mock debate" and that she's "mindful of the importance of 'podium behavior,'" but Trump won't do "a full-length mock debate," and some of his advisers worry that "underestimates the difficulty of standing still, talking pointedly and listening sharply for 90 minutes" and that if Hillary "surprises him," he'll be "caught flat-footed."

As for "Strengths," Clinton is a "dutiful student" good at "absorb[ing] information," while Trump has studied video of Clinton and himself. I wondered why these 2 things were put under the same heading. Why isn't the statement about Trump up there under "Preparations." I think it's because there is a Trump strength there. Perhaps it was edited out, and it corresponds interestingly to Hillary's orientation toward absorbing information: Trump is a student of human behavior. His prep is studying video, because his strength is in reading other people. She may be able to catch him in a factual mistake of some kind, but will she get him to display bad temperament? But he's the one with the strength in seeing through the surface and the words to how she is really feeling. (By the way, that means that the usual sex stereotypes are flipped.)

Finally, "Vulnerabilities." For Clinton: "stiff... irritable... defensive..." Trump, on the other hand is "insulting" and has a "tendency to lie..." and he might not understand what it means to take on a woman. Yes, Trump might bumble into some Rick-Lasio-ish male-on-female faux pas.

Serious question: Do the candidates get anything out of their mock debates? From what I've seen from Clinton surrogates, they actually have no idea what Republicans think, believe or might say. Any mock debate they come prepare is going to be of a caricature of Donald Trump. Likewise, I don't think Trump can really prepare for the 2-on-1 contest that awaits him through a mock debate.

Last cycle, for example, Romney and Ryan, treated the debates like debates, and were polite and reserved. Biden interrupted Ryan routinely, was rude, etc., things that they probably never did at the mock debate. All that it showed was that Republicans get no value out of being polite to the opposition. Something that no amount of mock debate could have prepared them for. Same with Romney: Who during the mock debate said, "Hey, what do you do if the moderator cuts in and lies to you about a fact?"

It might just be part of Trump's lazy, half-ass "style," but I don't know if there's value for either in mock debates.

But it is really, really important to stress that Clinton is super prepared and has been working this entire time.

I read outspoken Trump critic Mark Cuban has been given a front row seat by Hillary's campaign. Will he insert himself?If so, how will it play to ordinary, deplorable Americans when a connected billionaire uses a seat no ordinary American could get to heckle the only man in politics who shows the slightest concern for their problems. More game-rigging from the entitled Washington insiders is how it will come across.

Scripted says it all. If something happens out of the script whom will be able to respond better, Hillary or Donald. By the way Donald is use to being called Donald. I just hope that there is "Gore Moment" that puts Hillary away. What am I alluding too? Remember when Gore went behind Bush and Bush kept talking and just looked Gore up and down? I told my wife that Bush just won the election.

"This week's proposal for a Billionaire's Tax on a transfer of the wealth at death is a battle space prep that he should refuse to bite on."

HRC: The rich need to pay taxes on their wealth when they die because our society made it possible for them to accumulate that wealth

DJT: Rich people like Bill and Hillary Clinton put their money in a tax-free foundation so they don't have to pay taxes on it and can pass that money tax-free to their daughter. Her plan to tax hardworking farm and small-business families, the very people you call deplorable, leaves these fraudulent foundations untouched.

Political battlespace prep is supposed to put the issues in your favor. Opps.

Disclaimer: The debate scares me to death it is so high stakes for Trump.

That said, if you were Trump wouldn't you rather have everybody thinking that you were blowing off the debate? Do you think that there may be some misleading going on here? If I were going to be debating Clinton, I would want her convinced that her own propaganda is accurate - that I am stupid, that I am lazy, that I am unprepared, that I have no idea how things work; in essence, that I am an easy mark.

If I want you to attack my right flank I am going to make every effort to convince you that is my weakest point. If the NYT wants to help in that deception more power to them.

I would think Trump will let her go off insulting him. He'll respond, but he's not going to do what he did to Rubio and Cruz in the GOP debates. If he can turn her (and has been), into him, she becomes the thing she opposes. Her attacks will be angry as she has no comedic timing.

I would also expect a lot of Lester Holt interrupting of Trump "to keep him on the subject" while letting Hillary roam free. Let that happen too. If Holt is neutral Trump isn't going to pretend the debate is not a two on one: Hillary + Media v. Trump. That's the whole campaign and the fuel behind his movement.

"Nevertheless, out here in LaLaLand, Trump has got the natives running scared, not because he's a threat to win California, but because they know he's funny. In show business, the saying goes, funny is money. Donald's what's known in Hollywood as a "bankable star." As every television executive in the business knows, no one can get enough of him on the tube. When he's on a show with big-time professionals like Jimmy Fallon, Donald's the talent. He commands the screen.

Now you could say that doesn't ultimately mean much in something as serious as a presidential election, but I suspect you'd be wrong. Possibly the most significant thing we're voting for in this contest is someone we want to hang with for the next four, possibly eight, years. Consciously or unconsciously, that is a heavy consideration for practically all of us when we walk into the voting booth. We want someone who will wear well."

"Would either team speak openly to The NYT - or any other nosy-parkers for that matter?"

-- There's no downside for Clinton to talk to the NYT; we know that Politico at least would not run things the campaign told them not to run. There is downside for Trump's campaign to talk to them, but at the same time, not much.

What what? "Mrs. Clinton and her advisers have written out dozens of answers." Only three weeks ago the NYT advised us, in an article headlined "Leaked Script Shows What Advisers Want Donald Trump to Say at Black Church": "It is not uncommon for a candidate to request interview questions in advance; aides to Hillary Clinton do it from time to time. But it is unusual for a campaign to go so far as to prepare a script for a candidate’s own responses, and highlights the sensitivity of Mr. Trump’s first appearance at a black church."

And let's not discount the standing for 90 minutes with no breaks. Drudge is reporting microphones can not be cut off my the moderator.

Has there ever been a debate since Nixon-Kennedy where the issue of one candidate having to stand for and hour and a half was a concern? Or make it the whole debate without a coughing fit.

That is the Clinton campaign's uncontrollable variable. I guarantee a huge part of her team's preparation is trying to figure out the magic medication mixture to keep her standing for 90 minutes without dulling her senses.

If she makes it though without incident, which she should, its a big win. But if she doesn't, its a disaster.

Trump should stay relentlessly positive about what he thinks needs to be done, and I think he will. That is all he really needs to do to win this election- Buchanan is right. The country doesn't want a third Obama term, and they clearly don't want Clinton as president. This election is Trump's to win or lose on Monday night.

"If I were going to be debating Clinton, I would want her convinced that her own propaganda is accurate - that I am stupid, that I am lazy, that I am unprepared, that I have no idea how things work; in essence, that I am an easy mark."

I have no idea what the Clinton campaign staff expects, but the media and 95% of her supporters already think this about Trump, so the expectations for him are already set low in the public sphere- nothing different for the Republican candidate in my lifetime. It is a built-in advantage for Trump.

"EDITOR'S NOTE: The presidential debate commission settled an early flashpoint when Clinton demanded a step-stool at the podium to add height to her 5'4" frame. Campaign Chairman John Podesta expressed concern that Hillary would be dwarfed by 6'2" Trump. The request was quickly rejected. The commission is allowing for a custom-made podium, which will accommodate the difference in stature."

Ann sez: Trump is going deeper as he preps and will be more spontaneous during the event.

The only thing that Trump knows about "deeper" has to do with the depth of the excretion in which he swims. Tony Schwartz spent 18 straight months with Donald and concluded that essentially, Trump "has no attention span."

Trump’s short attention span has left him with “a stunning level of superficial knowledge and plain ignorance.” [Schwartz] said, “That’s why he so prefers TV as his first news source — information comes in easily digestible sound bites.” He added, “I seriously doubt that Trump has ever read a book straight through in his adult life.” During the eighteen months that he observed Trump, Schwartz said, he never saw a book on Trump’s desk, or elsewhere in his office, or in his apartment.

Schwartz even gave Hillary a hint for her debate straegy. "When you needle him and when you make him feel either not valuable or important or smart or even good looking, he gets very, very reactive, and he doesn’t operate on rational terms. We’ve seen this in the presidential campaign."

Everybody will be waiting to see how Hillary holds up. Trumpers want her to start coughing or get cockeyed. Hillary supporters want her to survive. Hillarys zingers will be like her union speech, Trump stiffed contractors and discriminated against blacks and called Mexicans rapists.Trump should have prepared answers for that. Stating how much money he has paid construction workers and hotel/golf course workers last decade would be interesting.. I hope Trump hits her with the dodging sniper fire story, complete with funny running motions, for a laugh.

Re Custom Podium: That seems fair, actually. The rule can be that each candidate gets a podium that is 60% of their individual height (or whatever % works). That's consistent standard. Giving one candidate a stepstool would not be. Also, and kind of step increases the chance of an HRC stumble and fall, so it would be risky for her.

And let's not discount the standing for 90 minutes with no breaks. Drudge is reporting microphones can not be cut off my the moderator.

Has there ever been a debate since Nixon-Kennedy where the issue of one candidate having to stand for and hour and a half was a concern? Or make it the whole debate without a coughing fit.

That is the Clinton campaign's uncontrollable variable. I guarantee a huge part of her team's preparation is trying to figure out the magic medication mixture to keep her standing for 90 minutes without dulling her senses.

If she makes it though without incident, which she should, its a big win. But if she doesn't, its a disaster.

There it is. If she simply survives, headlines will be all about how Trumps "big lie" is proven false and Clinton is the winner.

He opposes [class] diversity schemes. He judges people by the content of their character, not the "color of their skin". Abort him in the chamber. Abort him in the office. Abort him as a universal rite.

I think that Khesan0802 (11:39 AM) has the right of it. Trump is a lot smarter than most give him credit for. He has had his opponents wrong footed for more than a year now and they keep falling for it. Eisenhower and Reagan made powerful use of this tactic.

Lester Holt seemed like a pretty decent guy (for an MSM liberal) when he was anchoring the local news in Chicago. He was politically incorrect enough to say that he never suffered from racial discrimination. (OK. That was 20 years ago. He would be crucified for that comment today).

Lester is under a lot of pressure to take Trump down. Loaded questions and interruptions will be his primary methods. He is not an angry sort of lefty. He will seem relatively gentle.

Trump needs to repeat the line "Am I debating you or Mrs. Clinton, Lester?" a few times. He also needs to be subtle when he shifts from the loaded questions to say what he wants to say. Lester will catch it, but much of the audience will not. That's a trap that Trump can set for Lester Holt.

Basically more evidence that Hillary lacks the ability to be a successful president. She's been doing this all her life but still needs an army of expensive advisors and trainers to take on a opponent she excoriates as contemptible and incompetent.

I understand preparation. It's a key to success in everything. But Hillary has been preparing for this all her life and she seems terrified.

I find presidential debates incredibly painful to watch, and generally avoid them. They feel like prep for a colonoscopy, which I already did once this summer. Not sure I can stomach it again so soon.

"EDITOR'S NOTE: The presidential debate commission settled an early flashpoint when Clinton demanded a step-stool at the podium to add height to her 5'4" frame. Campaign Chairman John Podesta expressed concern that Hillary would be dwarfed by 6'2" Trump. The request was quickly rejected. The commission is allowing for a custom-made podium, which will accommodate the difference in stature."

I was looking forward to her standing on the step-stool, and, then, after an hour or so, toppling off it. With, of course her Secret Service and medical people running in to help her. That was one of the most brain dead things that her people could have come up with.

No. Biden spanked him and sent him to bed without his supper. Ryan thought he could pull that bullshit GOP establishment politician feckless faux politesse act on Biden, and Biden bitched-slapped silly. In any case, when it comes to debates, perception is reality. The perception is that Biden more than held his own against Ryan, when going into the debate the GOP was crowing that Ryan would hammer him. Just by holding his own against Ryan, and doing it in a way that came across as bad-boy funny, Biden scored a big victory.

gadfly, watch the debates, read the commentary about the debates, weigh the results against your Tony Schwartz wish fulfillment. We shall see. Maybe you're right and Trump is a historic success story for no good reason.

If you're wrong, will you find a different note to sing please?

BTW re Tony - he may have written the words - do you think he supplied the content too?

Paul Ryan's plan is substantial and important. The next president will have to work from it if they intend to accomplish anything except campaigning for midterms.

As the Spartans once said: "If."

The GOP always has plans. Some of them are even pretty good. They have lots of plans, agendas, and ideas. Just imagine: they were going to work to repeal Obamacare if they got majorities in both houses.

Beating Trump psychologically requires the moderator to make him feel like he's not being treating fairly. That's his biggest fear and he'll get belligerent if he feels like he's not treated fairly. Megan Kelly got him to respond this way and somehow he survived it. But the narrative associated with his response stuck.

Beating Clinton psychologically requires exposing her as making mistakes and pressuring her to go faster than she's comfortable. So lots of rapid fire points, interrupt her flow, and point out every little mistake and lie. Do this and her coughing stress response will take over. He also needs to make fun of her. Make sure the step stool she has set up is sturdy so she doesn't fall off it - things like that will irritate the crap out of her. Eventually, her hateful response mode will kick in.

Unlike Romney, Trump knows it's two on one out there and I'm sure he's planning on it unfolding that way. I think Trump has the edge, even two on one. There is very little Clinton herself can do to Trump because he just doesn't embarrass easily nor does he care about getting his facts straight. But Trump is well suited to exploit Hillary's deep seated fears and stress responses. But, Trump is also well suited to going to far and turning people off.

From Zero Hedge . . . Ted Cruz Endorses Donald Trump: "After Many Months Of Prayer I Have Decided I Will Vote For Donald Trump" Cruz said that "our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way. A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him"

I suspect that giving Clinton a lot of scripted "zingers" may not be how her team would like the debate to go, but they have to give her a script that she can stay on, and be comfortable she can stay on, because (a) if she starts to feel like it's getting out of her total control she will freeze (that need for control has been there forever), and (b) if she starts feeling stress from loss of control she may have a neurological event.

She is highly disciplined and not at all empathetic, esp. on camera, so this approach, despite its limitations, plays to her strengths while minimizing her weaknesses. It's cautious but probably her best chance.

By "zingers" I suppose they hope for Trump to open himself up to a Dan Quayle-Lloyd Bentsen "You're no JFK" moment, which given Trump's ego is a possibility.

If I was Trump, I would be looking for things that make her blood pressure rise. My tactic would be to take her out in third debate with a knockout. What I would give to see her convulsing carcass behind her podium on the TV!

No matter what Hillary brings up concerning her "accomplishments" all he has to respond with is, "Mrs. Secretary, I'll concede to you that you are very knowledgeable about world political leaders, geography, etc., etc.. So explain how your miserable policy failures? Seems all you accomplished while in public service is Clinton Inc."

"Scripted zingers?" Based on Trump's performance in the primary debates, I would say he's a better counter-puncher than aggressor, so Hillary would be pretty stupid to try that. (Plus, as her time Between the Ferns shows, wit and timing are not exactly her fortes.)

I really think some version of the passive-aggressive "would you bully a defenseless woman!" is about her only shot. Fainting dead away is a dramatic skill she's been working on. Its corny/Victorian, but maybe the millennials could see it as po-mo performance art (with a little help from the NYT).

“Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system,” the FBI said in its Sept. 2 report. “She relied on State officials to use their judgment when emailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address.”

So Hillary discussed helping an Iranian scientist in her emails, a scientist who had helped us, in terms that anybody with any kind of insider knowledge in Iran could have figured out who he was, and after the emails come out, the Iranians roust him out of his jail cell and hang him. Hang a man who tried to help the United States.

So Hillary discussed helping an Iranian scientist in her emails, a scientist who had helped us, in terms that anybody with any kind of insider knowledge in Iran could have figured out who he was, and after the emails come out, the Iranians roust him out of his jail cell and hang him. Hang a man who tried to help the United States.

Trump's advisors should make sure he knows his name and he asks her about him.

I think not. The problem that Hillary and her MSM minions have is that Trump is still undergoing an IRS audit. And has been audited for several years in a row. To any neutral observer, having to undergo an IRS audit for several years in a row seems very much like harassment. And the harassment comes from a federal agency not known for fairness or political neutrality – to put it mildly.

So I’m not sure that Trump opponents will want Hillary to bring all that up but if Hillary does then a huge audience will be allowed to hear Trump’s unfiltered response. So as a Trump supporter I hope Hillary tries this ploy.

Lester is under a lot of pressure to take Trump down.

I’m hoping the hapless moderator tries. Considering how talking heads these days are held in contempt by the public it would be a perfect opportunity for Trump to riff on the bias of the moderator, unfiltered by MSM false narratives or rhetorical obfuscation.

Take caution, fellow Trump supporters. Beware! We all thought Ryan would wipe the floor with Biden, and look how that turned out.

Comparing Ryan to Trump is like comparing a poodle to a pit bull.

Megan Kelly got him to respond this way and somehow he survived it.

After every debate Trump’s poll numbers went up. That’s pretty good “survival.”

Ryan may have a plan, but if Trump wins he'll have a bully pulpit and use it like no one before. Advantage: Trump

I think not. The problem that Hillary and her MSM minions have is that Trump is still undergoing an IRS audit. And has been audited for several years in a row. To any neutral observer, having to undergo an IRS audit for several years in a row seems very much like harassment. And the harassment comes from a federal agency not known for fairness or political neutrality – to put it mildly.

He could say "I am unable to simply wipe my hard drives and have that fly". Also, the sheer lack of interest in the Clinton Foundation is duly noted. Audits year after year just seem superfluous. He could make it as a huge plus for him by noting that it seems awfully odd that he is being audited all of the time with no apparent significant errors found.

I wonder if the press would let him feign ignorance as Hillary does with all of her scandals.

Hell, he could say that unlike Hillary, he places enough importance upon information security that he has backups, redundancy, logging, auditing, and data could not be lost in his IT organization without a conspiracy which would be detected and it's actors identified.

Yes, I too was really stunned by Paul Ryan's terrible, prissy performance in that 2012 Veep debate. It was almost like Animal House with Biden playing Belushi. Ryan might have known all the numbers but Biden could hear the sound of the audience snoring. Whoever prepared Biden for that debate knew his target. Or, maybe they told Biden, "just be yourself."

I don't think the NYT has good sources within the Trump campaign. Even if they did, it sounds like the strategy he would be following is the one they hope he will follow. Reagan proved you can't teach the media what they don't want to learn. For reasons I've written before, I think this debate could prove to be a fiasco. I'm not sure I have the stomach to watch it.

If Hillary is still ill, then too much debate prep will work against her. Then again, it could be that she really is doing less debate prep than Trump and just wants the Trump campaign to believe that she might be over-tiring herself. I suspect that this will be a very highly rated debate. BTW, I just noticed that I usually refer to Hillary Clinton as "Hillary" and Donald Trump as "Trump." She has had to emphasize her first name to separate herself from Bill; the slogan isn't "I'm with Clinton." On the other hand, Donald Trump puts his last name, Trump, on everything he owns. If Hillary calls him "Donald," it will seem awkward and petty.